In-Group Favoritism in International Justice Concerns: Power, Involvement, and Attitudes toward the Iraq War and the Cross Straits Relationship in Five Societies

Abstract

Surveys in the USA, New Zealand, Taiwan, Japan, and China examined attitudes toward the Iraq War and the Cross-Straits Relationship between China and Taiwan. Factor analyses revealed a four-factor solution of justice concerns: (a) national mandate for military intervention, (b) international mandate against military action, (c) procedural justice, and (d) distributive justice issues. Americans and mainland Chinese were significantly different in an in-group favoring direction compared to other societies regarding justice concerns involving their nation. Taiwan, the low-powered society in the Cross-Straits Relationship, was like the uninvolved societies. Justice in international relations is filtered through in-group favoritism for powerful states.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was made possible by grant RG04-P-03 from the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation for international scholarly exchange. Thanks to the Cross-Cultural Lab at Victoria University and two anonymous reviewers for comments on a previous draft of this article.

Notes

Note. Bold values indicate loadings >.30.

^a α = .89. ^b α = .68. ^c α = .90. ^d α = .78.

Note. Bold values indicate loadings >.30. US = United States.

^a α = .81. ^b α = .75. ^c α = .90. ^d α = .79.

¹The Cross Straits items were worded as conditionals, whereas the Iraq War items were worded as past or present tense.

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarian; US = United States; NZ = New Zealand; UN = United Nations.

∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01.

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarian; UN = United Nations; US = United States.

∗∗∗p < .001.

Note. SDO = social dominance orientation; RWA = Right-Wing Authoritarian; US = United States; UN = United Nations.

∗∗∗p < .001.